Aurora City v. West’s Empirical Analysis
74 U.S. 82 · 1868
Citation profile
68 federal appellate · 5 district · 84 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 214 later decisions (19 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2015 · most notably Messenger v. Anderson (1912), Campbell v. City of Haverhill (1895)
68 federal appellate · 5 district · 84 state decisions — followed in 26 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Young and al v. Black · Cooke v. Graham's Administrator · Bouchaud v. Dias · Anstice v. Holmes
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 214 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]here every objection urged in the second suit was open to the party within the legitimate scope of the pleadings in the first suit, and might have been presented in that trial, the matter must be considered as having passed in remjudicatam, and the former judgment in such a case is conclusive between the parties. Except in special cases, the plea of res judicata, says Taylor, applies not only to points upon which the court was actually required to form an opinion and pronounce judgment, but to every point which properly belonged to the subject of litigation, and which the parties, exercising reasonable diligence, might have brought forward at the time.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The doctrine of estoppel by a former judgment between the same parties is one of the most beneficial principles of our jurisprudence, and has been less affected by legislation than almost any other.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent““But if the sum for which judgment should be rendered is certain, as where the suit is upon a bill of exchang-e or promissory note, the computation may be made by the court, or, what is more usual, by the clerk: and the same course may be pursued even when the sum for which judgment should be rendered is uncertain, if neither party request the court to call a jury for that purpose. Common-law rules were substantially the same, except that ‘the court themselves might, in a large class of cases, if they pleased, assess the damages, and thereupon give final judgment.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.